Scales Solve the Continuous vs. Discrete Paradox by Ray B Munroe

Ray How can I calculate this o² and s² and how can I calculate the numbers of cosmological spheres.If I have that, It will be easier.Perhaps it's the same than c , but I doubt , if the volumes of entangled spheres are inserted...we can class all dear Dr Cosmic Ray.

Now must I consider only one sphere for this entanglement with its intrinsic spheres or each spheres of this entanglement must be analyzed??? I become crazzy with this serie, I must find this number, it exists a pure number of cosmological spheres and I am persuaded that the ultim entanglerment is the same. An approximation is difficult.

It's as the ultim main cetral sphere as our center of our Unievsral sphere, what is its volume??? and where is this central main sphere where all turns around. The BB in logic , as a spherical expansion contraction towards the perfect equilibrium between mass systems.

Best Regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

I really don't follow your idea. At first order approximation, o^2*s^2=1. Higher-order terms must include powers of (v/c)^2.

How many cosmological spheres are there? What if that number is 10^41 or 10^500 or "infinity"? I think it is appropriate to build the most complete model with the smallest number of "cosmological sphere" degrees-of-freedom. Your fundamental symmetry seems tetrahedral (and identical to the Face-Centered Cubic symmetry presented in Figure 1 of my essay), so the minimum basis would contain 4 spheres. You might reread the Hyperflavor section of my book (Section 7.2). That contains a tetrahedral symmetry, but you (like Ed Klingman) probably want to explain as much as possible with as few assumed degrees-of-freedom as possible, so replace Hyperflavor-Electro-Weak with Gravi-Electro-Weak if you can. I have told Ed that his 4 fields (G,C,E,B) do not contain enough degrees-of-freedom to represent reality as we know it. Likewise, I don't think that 4 spinning spheres can do the job either.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Steve,

If a tetrahedron with 4 vertices is too simplistic a framework for a TOE, then we should look at the most natural extensions of the tetrahedron. The smallest natural extention of the tetrahedron is to nest two tetrahedra into an octahedron with 8 vertices (8 spheres) and an octahedral symmetry. The next smallest extension of the tetrahedron is to include the tetrahedron's nearest-neighbors with (4+24) vertices (see Table 7 of my book) (28 spheres).

Coincidentally, this is the number of dimensions (28) of the F-theoretic model that I proposed in "The Nature of Dimensions" with Lawrence Crowell in PSTJ 1,7.

At some point, Occam's razor demands that we justify the additional complexity of our model. I'm working on it...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Steve - I read Vladimir Tamari's essay @ topic #836 this afternoon, and realized that his ideas sound a lot like the tetrahedral/FCC symmetries of my Hyperflavor-Electro-Weak theory (one component of my TOE), your spinning spheres, and Gingras' magnetic spin ice. You should read his essay...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray ,

I have read all essays, and several are rationals,Dr Layzer, Hector, Dr Klingman ...them they are rational.

I see never you shall change Dr Cosmic Ray.You are incredible, surprising even

Dr Cosmic Ray,I speak about the ultim fractal of the main central sphere and its volume and you insert still your confusions you make me crazzy Dr Cosmic Ray......Ray you need to focus on foundamentals .You think what you are going to have prizes with Ex toe or what???It is not possible.With your creativity and your potential of superimposings, it is sad you forget the generality of our rationalities.If you were general and foundamental, you shall be very very relevant and not a little as Lawrence in Fact and Florin.I am irritated by so many skillings and it lacks the essential, this uniqueness.Sad and so real in the sciences community.It is that Dr Cosmic Ray an Ocham Razo, the uniqueness, and even for a turing machine, the sortings are so essential when we want explain our pure realism and its constants, irreversibilities....

In fact as many you do not really understand my Theory of Spherization.How can you insert the correct number if you begin with infinities for the ultim entanglement.

PS WHEN i CONSIDER 1 SPHERE IT IS FOR A KIND OF SPHERE WITH ITS SPHERES? THUS JUST FOR A GENERALITY OF MY EQUATION and for facilitating the calculations.Thus the light has an entanglement and momemtum we can fractalizes also this serie with its properties.

Best Regards

Steve

what do you think about a quark gluon plasma with a partition function....

Hi Steve,

I was at the beach for the last couple of days. It was relaxing to get away. What if the "sphere" is a Buckyball that surrounds the Black Hole "near singularity", and "spinning" tetrahedra (Vladimir Tamari's basic idea - perhaps of red-green-blue-white "color"?) are situated at each of the 60 vertices (of the Carbon-60 Buckyball). This would yield 240 degrees-of-freedom similar to Garrett Lisi's E8 roots, but we would only have 3 dimensions at each of two different scales (the 3-D buckyball scale, and the 3-D tetrahedra scale). I've always liked Buckyballs, and one of the discoverers of Carbon-60, Sir Harry Kroto, lives im my neighborhood.

In case of a rotating Black Hole, the Buckyball symmetry may not be stable enough, and two nested Buckyballs may transform into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like near-torus (similar to a lattice-like Tokamak) with spinning tetrahedra at each of 120 vertices. This would yield the 480 degrees-of-freedom of a Supersymmetric model similar to Lisi's.

I need to reread Vladimir's essay, and think more on these ideas.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Ray,

Your application of Lucas Numbers is verry interesting. Also what you say about the different dimensions that it is possible to see them as different scaled dimensions.

In my model I treat dimensions like time and length in the same way as the dimensions of mass, momentum and energy. But I don't have any justification for that. Maybe only because I say that the speed of light and the gravitational constant are the same kind of constant. Both expressing relativistic properties. But there are some nagging things with this view.

For example. we can have different velocities below the limit of the speed of light, but are there also different gravicities below (or above) the gravitational constant? (gravicity is the variable quantity of which the gravitational constant is the limit.)

And the problem with the planck values: 'wooden' quantities like Mass, momentum and energy have upperlimits and 'marble' quantities like time, length and gm-flux have lower limits. Why? what is the meaning of this?

Mostly the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity. (but in my model it is also possible to have purely marble or purely woorden 'planck constants', but that is only theoretical.)

Friendly regards

Peter

you make me more crazzy than I am .At the beach, if I could, I will rest me and hop a little of surf.hihih you know I have always dreamed to learn the surf.But in belgium of course you shall understand it is difficult.

Ray do you know how I must do for having a kind of bourse at harvard, I d like learn the computing and enginiering.I have more than 200 inventions you know, and I don't speak of ideas, in all humility.My lacks of knowledges is in the computer language and the programmation for computing.I need to learn more about semiconductors.and linux and this and that ....and more about programmation.I have always dreamed to be in an university in fact in USA. I need to learn more Ray, there I need to learn still and always more.I am frustrated to rest at home.I become really crazzy.

ps Vladimir essay is relevant indeed if we consider the first division, this ultim mitosis meiosis of the main central sphere, the biggest volume in logic.The polyhedrization and the spherization are so the same.

Regards

Steve

Dear Peter,

I am still formulating some of these ideas. From the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, position and momentum seem to be reciprocally scaled dynamic variables. The same might also be true of time-energy, and many of your other dynamic units.

You asked "And the problem with the planck values: 'wooden' quantities like Mass, momentum and energy have upperlimits and 'marble' quantities like time, length and gm-flux have lower limits. Why? what is the meaning of this?"

I think that the upper limits imply at least one scale beyond (larger than) our perception, and the lower limits imply at least one scale within (smaller than) our perception. These scales may all have different complexergies (complexity-energy), and different upper speeds (c), and lower energy-times (Planck's scale). I think that G is the same value for every scale that admits its existance, but the Multiverse scale has numbers of even greater complexergy than 10^41, and thus admits an even weaker fundamental force - perhaps related to quantum gravity (or similar to the WIMP-Gravity in my book).

You also said "Mostly the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity. (but in my model it is also possible to have purely marble or purely woorden 'planck constants', but that is only theoretical.)"

Equations 2 and 3 of my essay imply that "the planck constant is the product of a marble quantity together with a wooden quantity". Effectively, this is because they are reciprocally scaled dynamic variables. If "it is also possible to have purely marble or purely wooden 'planck constants'", then that would have very interesting implications for this scale approach to unification.

Have Fun and Good Luck in the essay contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

no dear Peter and Dr Cosmic Ray the extradimensions do not exist...only a differernt relativistic scale in 3D exitss...the rest is vain and even not similarities.You don't understand thus the gravity and the realivity.And thus the evolution and its entropy and its UNIQUENESS is not understood....

Best Regards

Steve

Ray,

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.

Rafael

Dear Ray Munroe,

You have written an essay which is not only good but also focuses attention on unifying reality from many angles.However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog.But,I have other thoughts as well according to which it is possible to reconcile both from a still fundamental concept.So,please,go thro' my essay and your openion is welcomed.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

The "Fly-by" mysteries:

There exist half a dozen or more instances, first noted in 1931 and as recent as 2010, where neither Newton's gravity nor Einstein's general relativity account for the observed accelerations, from NASA satellites, to planets, to stars, to galaxies. These are collectively known as the 'Fly-by' mysteries, and are addressed in my essay.

Dear Ray,

I am finding it difficult to read all 170 or so essays and the thousand or more comments, so it took me a while to become aware of your 'drive by shooting' on Rafael's thread in which you state the following:

"And if you use the electron rest mass of 9.11x10^(-31) kg as your "dipstick", then your energy increase is 4x10^(-51), which is a reasonable coupling factor (~10^-10 because Earth's gravitational field is relatively weak) times the inverse of Dirac's Large Number of 10^-41, and is in no way related to the inverse of Klingman's large number of 10^-61 (which would require an unreasonably large non-linear coupling factor of 10^10 in Earth's weak gravitational field).

Sorry, Ed - I like you, but I think you missed the mark with 10^61. Rather than (10^61)^(-2) ~ 10^(-123), it should be (10^41)^(-3) ~ 10^(-123). I think that this correction eliminates some of your declared agreement with experimental data, but it does not destroy your fundamental GEM-like idea."

Well Ray, I like you too, and you're right, it doesn't destroy my GEM idea, but it is significant. Over four years ago I worked out the FLRW equations of Einstein's relativity including the energy density of the C-field and showed that the C-field appears exactly in the same place and manner as Einstein's cosmological constant. Since I had already shown that the C-field produces the "dark energy-like" inflationary effects and that it would produce the correct behavior for half dozen mysteries currently summarized under the rubric 'fly-by' mysteries, ranging from Pioneer data to planetary orbits to the 'flat rotation curves' of stars and galaxies. I published these explanations in "The Gene Man Theory" and derived the FLRW equation in "Gene Man's World" and filed the relevant copies with the Copyright office to be sure that my explanation (the first, other than MOND) was recorded and dated.

But I did not have the actual numbers until about one week before I submitted my essay, when on Nov 19 Grumiller published his results in Phys Rev Letters. Although I had essentially finished my essay, I rewrote it in order to be able to include half a page on this important data (page 8 in my essay.)

This is some of the most important supporting data for my theory, so I cannot let you trash it without response.

Ray, Maxwell taught us that the energy of a field is proportional to the square of the field amplitude. So when I am given a value for the energy of the field, I compute the amplitude by taking the square root, NOT the CUBE ROOT. This then gives me the value that is used for the accelerations, and I find EXACTLY the correct value and range of values, based on my GEM equations. That is significant. You complain that this is a large value for the earth's gravity, and my whole point, based on Tajmar's data and my calculations is that the C-field is much stronger than Maxwell and Einstein believed based on simple symmetry considerations. That's an argument for me, not against me.

Now because you have some numerological ideas, based on Dirac's large numbers (which I'm sure was simply speculation, since I don't believe Dirac actually practiced numerology) you claim that I should be taking the cube root to obtain the number you want instead of the actual number that I do get that is physically well reasoned and matches ALL of the 'fly-by' data. You are simply mistaken, and have no physics on your side, only numerology.

The next time you feel compelled to attack one of my major results that agrees with reality, please do so on my thread so I can respond appropriately.

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sreenath B N,

Thank you for your comments.

You said "However,I was disappointed in the end to know that,according to you,reality is dual and currently there is no way of reconciling digital with its counterpart analog."

I did not intend to sound indecisive (in fact, I worried that my last sentence is so blunt that it may sound obnoxious). There were many essays that left the question open - as if we cannot currently determine the true nature of reality. I think that reality is clearly BOTH digital and analog. Ultimately, this goes back to Louis de Broglie's Wave-Particle Duality. "Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings - the same idea as a CD disc and player but taken to a scale extreme - way beyond Blu-Ray's blue laser sampling vs. standard CD or DVD red laser sampling...).

I would like to believe that my ideas are "Universalist" ideas in that digital (discrete quantum particles and charges) and analog (continuously differentiable field functions) are complementary concepts that each have their proper scaled place in a TOE.

I have limited time in which to read these essays, but have enjoyed reading them, and even gotten some fresh ideas from these essays. Hopefully, I can get to your essay by next week.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Previously, I said ""Analog" is simply a near-infinite (where "near-infinite" is ~10^41) number of "digital" samplings". This statement might imply that reality is fundamentally digital, and can always be "digitized", so I thought that I should clarify a point. When we have a very large number (~10^41?) of overlapping wave functions, we may have intereference and non-linear effects that cause this analog function to be inherantly different from the "digitized" version of the analog function. Thus reality is BOTH analog and digital, and cannot be reduced to one or the other.

Ray,

Thank you for responding on my thread.

You say: "I attribute this coincidence to the geometry of 3 spatial dimensions, rather than the square of an amplitude."

I interpret this to mean "three degrees of freedom". For example Boltzmann's constant is multiplied by 3 for three degrees of freedom:

1/2 mv^2 = (3/2)kT

This is quite different from assuming that 3 spatial dimensions implies a cube root.

Is this what you're saying?

And Ray, the "drive by shooting" was tongue in cheek. I am not upset that you posted a remark where you considered it appropriate at the time, but I would like to have a 'heads up' so I can respond. I do think this 'Fly-by' physics is important validation as I derived the physics long before I had the measured values to compare to.

Of course either of our interpretations may be wrong.

Having fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

I think that three degrees of freedom gives us a factor of three, not the power of three that coincidentally distinguishes the inverse Cosmolgical Constant from Dirac's Large Number.

In my essay, I said that fine-tuning on the order of ~10^41 (or its inverse) is not mathematically probable or philosophically reasonable. I deduce that 10^41 must, therefore, be a number that is mandated by our scale.

What about 10^123 (and its inverse)? Is it the ultimate scale number for our scale, and 10^41 is its cube root? Or is 10^-123 "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy than ours? [By the way, I did enjoy your reference to Nottale's scales.] If this number was different, say 10^-100, then I would be more willing to accept it as leakage from another scale.

If it has a bill, webbed feet, and quacks, then it might be a duck. The similarity between 10^-123 vs. (10^41)^-3 is too striking to ignore.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

I must admit that I don't understand the relevance of what might be entirely accidental numerical relations.

For example, in attempting to calculate the strength of the C-field, I found it 10^31 stronger than Maxwell assumed (he did so for no good reason, just simple symmetry) and recently Tajmar has measured the C-field and found the same factor of 10^31 greater than expected.

Now these numbers are not "exact" but they are very close being the EXACT FOURTH ROOT of 10^123 , that is, (10^31)^4 = 10^124 [close enough for government work].

Is that too striking to ignore?

So it may or may not be legitimate to play the numbers game where there is not real physics to back it up, only theories of scale.

By the way, I owe the use of Nottale in my essay to you. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman